If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Contrasted elements diagrammed

Ah! This is fun to be back at this!

Mr. Antonson thinks that analysis as an appositive is interesting and possible. I like the fact that it does not add understood words and seems to be so concise and eloquent. However, I don't actually think it works.

I feel that an appositive should DUPLICATE a sentence part. Granted that "real politicians" and "not puppets" can both function as the direct object, I DON'T feel that they are exchangeable without markedly changing the sense of the sentence. Although it involves much ellipsis, I feel that words like "...and (or but) we do ... need" must be understood to really include the whole meaning.

Let me try to diagram it my way -- partly to see if I can still do this online.

Re: Contrasted elements diagrammed

(1) Because of computer problems (and my being a computer illiterate), I cannot press the "thank you" button to join the two other members who have thanked you. So I thank you VERY much in this post.

(2) I, too, think that the appositive idea is very interesting, but I agree with you that somehow I find it hard to accept. With you, I prefer the ellipsis explanation.

(3) I should point out, however, that in Professor Quirk's A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (which SOME people feel is the most
comprehensive grammar currently available), he writes this:

Reformulation can also be negative, ie the modifying APPOSITIVE (my emphasis) is NOT (my emphasis) a synonymous expression:

You should have consulted an ophthalmologist, not (that is) an optician.

(4) Nevertheless, I believe that most "authorities," pace Professor Quirk, still hold to the ellipsis theory.